2 and were vested with the normal colonial constitution,

they were placed in the same category, at least as far as emigration was concerned, as Mauritius and the British

West Indian colonies. Although the Straits Times had itself hailed the transfer as "the greatest political event which has occurred since the foundation of the Settlement",-^ it now seemed unaware of these important implications.

Governor Qrd1 23s Enquiry

Disturbed by the claims that the infant colony was the recipient of kidnapped Indian labourers, Governor Sir Harry St George Ord, of the Straits Settlements, personally conducted an enquiry towards the end of 1870 on "every

estate" in Province Wellesley. The result of this enquiry

1 Straits Times. 9 July 1870.

2 See Turnbull, Straits Settlements, p. 382. 3 Straits Times. 21 March 1867.

disposed him to refute the allegations of kidnapping in the ordinary sense of the word. Strongly protesting to the Madras government, he dismissed the charges as ’’unfounded or greatly exaggerated”.1 2 But to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he admitted:

There were a few cases in which boys [and two women] alleged that they had been sent against their will .... I have no doubt but that in some

instances advantage has been taken of the discontent of lads with their position at home and of girls or

young married women having quarrelled with their husbands or relatives to hold out flattering pictures of the advantages they would obtain in the Straits and to encourage them to emigrate thither.2

Although he thus confirmed that recruiters had used deception in procuring recruits, Ord apparently saw nothing singularly sinister in this. It seems that he believed that any such emigration would be subject to certain hazards and abuses which would also exist in emigration to the other colonies. Indeed, where recruitment had been carried on by local men paid by the results, it could hardly be expected that abuses would not be perpetrated.

In fact, some recruits might have actually invited being coerced. It would not be far-fetched to assume that once they had spent their advances, some rescinded their decision and refused to emigrate. Where this occurred, the recruiters would be faced with three options: they could choose not to return to their employers; they could refund

1 M P P , v o l , 272, December 1871.

advances lost out of their pockets; or they could compel reluctant recruits to emigrate* Recruiters could take this latter course seemingly with almost entire impunity,

Hathaway's admission of some neglect by the police to take active steps to prevent kidnapping,^ leads to the inference

that the recruiters were relatively free to secure recalcitrants by the most effective means.

This being a strong possibility, Ord's claim that out of the "large proportion" of labourers he had examined, only a small fraction had declared being coerced to emigrate, could have been an underestimate. Maybe there were others who were too timid or terrified to make such an incriminating assertion, Ord's report revealed no such consideration,

apparently because he believed the labourers were aware of their legal rights.

That belief was based on a few incidents which

occurred in 1868 and 1869» Twelve complaints were allegedly made by Indian emigrants who were detained on board ship at

Penang for non-payment of their fares, and were later released

p

by a writ of habeas corpus. Recounting that incident, Ord concluded: "This shows that the emigrants are aware of the protection they can claim from the courts of the colony and negatives the presumption that any of them are brought hither against their will."-' This is rather doubtful. It could hardly be expected that poor and unlettered peasants would be

1 Tan.iore Gazette, 12 March 1870.

2 C.O. 273/45* Ord to Kimberley, no. 39» 24 February 1871. 3 Ibid

capable of pursuing what would certainly have been for them a complicated and expensive legal process. It was more

likely that it was the planter to whom the emigrants were consigned who had secured their release.

Ord was either using diversionary tactics to

convince the Colonial Office of the falsehood of Hathaway’s injurious allegations, or he misunderstood or was unaware of the real vulnerability of the average South Indian

indentured labourer. For this latter assumption, there is some ground. 'The description given by Birch, who claimed close observation of Tamils for twenty-five years, indicated why a larger number than contended by Ord could have been forced to emigrate. Birch wrote:

Very few of them can read; and their minds, growing up to maturity in a very narrow circle, and with nothing to rouse

their powers, remain in deep ignorance and superstition. But the most painful part of their character is the entire want of independence or what is called honest pride. A common taluk^ peon is to them a terrible personage.2

Undoubtedly, they would be more fearful of a British Governor in the more inhibiting presence of his aides, and of the

Attorney-General and the estate managers who accompanied

the party. In such formidable company, most of the labourers would have been either uncommunicative or unwilling to admit being kidnapped. Thus, it was quite possible that the number

1 Taluk, a dependency or sub-district (held by a talukdar) in South India. A taluk peon, a native office messenger, or as in this instance, an orderly of that sub-district. Source: C.A,M.Fennel, The Stanford Dictionary of

Anglicized Words and Phrases (Cambridge, 1892), p. 755* 2 C.O. 273/45. Ord to Kimberley, no. 39> 24 February 1871.

of labourers kidnapped was greater than actually discovered.

The language barrier could also have posed difficulties in ascertaining the actual number kidnapped. To facilitate

communication, the enquiry would have depended upon

interpreters who, in some cases, might have been the tindals, some of whom were also recruiters. Ord had said that the planters had often despatched their headmen to recruit in India.^ Furthermore, it will be recalled that of the seven persons convicted of kidnapping in Tanjore in 1869> two were recruiters. It was, therefore, quite probable that when the tindals, as recruiters, were confronted with the possibility of losing advances, they preferred to compel their recruits to emigrate. But because of fear of victimization, labourers who might have been coerced by the recruiting headmen would hardly be expected to accuse them in their presence.

The Planters' Protest

Ord's remonstrance against Hathaway's allegations was complemented by protest from the planters. At an urgently convened meeting, they passed the following resolutions:

a. That this meeting has heard with surprise and alarm that the coolie emigration

from the Coromandel Coast to the Straits Settlements has been suddenly prohibited, after having existed for upwards of half a century.

b. That a committee be appointed to enquire into the subject of the coolie emigration from India, and the various Legislative Acts bearing upon the subject, with a view of

drawing up a memorial to the government in favour of this Colony being placed upon the same footing as Ceylon and British Burmah, with reference to the Legislative Act of 1864«^

In the petition addressed to Ord, the planters depicted the economic plight they anticipated, and urged his intervention to bring about a speedy resumption of

2

emigration. At the same time, they claimed that out of the many thousands of Indian labourers under their employ, not one had ever lodged a complaint of having been kidnapped; that women were brought over for prostitution was not true; and that a "large number" of them came over with their

husbands and led more reputable and comfortable lives than they had ever done before.^ Straits records are silent on these issues; no clear evidence is, therefore, available that would corroborate or refute these claims. But the

Singapore Daily Times observed: "There is one feature in the petition of the planters which strikes us as being peculiar, namely, the credit which they take to themselves throughout for the care and solicitude they have at all times displayed for the well-being of their coolies.

1 Penang Gazette. 2 July 1870.

2 C.O. 273/45« Enclosure in Ord to Kimberley, no. 39, 24 February 1871.

3 Ibid.

On the other hand, the Penang Gazette defended the planters and rebutted Hathaway's allegations. The editor urged the planters to counter the charge of prostitution with an "indignant denial."^ But he continued rather contradictorily: "Possibly there are isolated cases in

p

which such a 'nefarious traffic' has been practised". In an apparent attempt to diminish the seriousness of even these few cases, the editor postulated that generally, the women's new life was a great improvement on that he claimed they had led in South India. Previous to their immigration into the Straits, he asserted, the women were "the very sweepings of the Madras bazaars, wasted with disease, and steeped in every moral iniquity". But after their arrival on the estates, he added, they "become reclaimed ... and in nearly every case marry and live reputable lives, bearing and bringing up children, who, instead of having reason to curse those who induced their parents to emigrate, have every cause to bless the day when they were removed to a better and purer moral atmosphere."

Madras Government's Demands for Labour Protection In September 1870, the Collector of Tanjore transferred the entire matter to the provincial Madras government. The first step they took was to appoint the

sub-Collector of Tanjore, H.J.Stokes (who succeeded Hathaway), to enquire into the latter's allegations. In his report of

1 Penang Gazette. 2 July 1870. 2 Ibid

late September 1870, which Master, the Chief Secretary to

the government of India, described as ’’very able and careful",'*' Stokes maintained that the traffic did involve kidnapping of women and minors, which led to a "system of duress or illegal confinement, and, moreover, excessive crowding on board

p

ship," This report persuaded the Madras government to uphold all of Hathaway's repressive measures. Furthermore, the government re-affirmed that labour emigration to the Straits must discontinue with immediate effect.

As matters thus stood, a legal resumption of the traffic was only possible if the Straits government complied with the terms of Act XIII of 1864* Specially applicable to the Straits Settlements was the following proviso:

The Governor-General of India in Council may from time to time, by notification

..., declare that the emigration of Natives of India shall be lawful to any

place other than the places mentioned ... provided that every such notification shall contain also a declaration, that the Governor-General .•. has been duly certified that the government of the place to which the notification refers has made such laws and other provisions as the Governor-General ... thinks

sufficient for the protection of Natives of India emigrating to such place.3

Of the provisions required by the Act before emigration could be resumed, the Madras government insisted on three,

pending final arrangements. First, they required the appointment of an Emigration Agent who would be stationed

1 MPP, no. 583, 19 March 1883.

2 IEP, nos 1 - 1 5 j September 1870; Geoghegan, Emigration from I n d i a , p. 59.

at the port of departure.1 2345 This officer would be nominated and paid by the Straits government, but his appointment

would be subject to the approval of the government of Madras. His functions would include overseeing recruitment,

arranging such temporary lodging as was required for the emigrants before embarkation, and supplying such medical

p